The Jersey City Council discussed reintroducing a bird-safe glass ordinance during their caucus yesterday after former Mayor Steven Fulop vetoed the proposal at the tail end of his third and final term last year.
By Daniel Ulloa/Hudson County View
” … The planning board recommendation got rid of language in the applicability where these standards would apply,” Senior Planner Cameron Black told the governing body yesterday.
“They removed the site plan approval threshold. So, planning staff wanted to keep the site plan threshold … The planning board got rid of that site plan threshold to make it apply to all development in the city. We wanted it to apply to our taller buildings.”
He noted cost concerns were prominently featured in the opposition’s rhetoric, and while he didn’t mention anyone by name, he said that narrative was completely inaccurate.
“That is false. The brick, which is what the bird-friendly designers call for mostly, is cheaper, greener, and honesty aesthetically it is part of the character and identity of our city … Glass is more costly,” Black added during the public session.
Ward F Councilman Frank “Educational” Gilmore inquired about the rationale for one- and two-family homes being included in the ordinance.
“The planning board determined they wanted it to apply to everything … planning staff stands by our original recommendation,” Black replied.
Gilmore followed up by asking if many birds have flown into one- and two-family homes.
“The short answer is yes …. To enforce it across the entire city, it would be easier to roll out if we had this threshold of the site plan,” Black replied.
From there, Ward D Councilman Jake Ephros noted that he was told that the cost of the ordinance would be “exorbitant” and passed onto renters and condominium owners and asked if there was any validity to that claim.
“… They misconstrued what the order is attempting to fix. They were insinuating a retrofitting all of these buildings with the most expensive UV glass … It’s not an accurate way of assessing the cost,” Black explained.
Ward E Councilwoman Elena Little said she had sat down with representatives with pro and con stances on the issue and felt a good compromise could be reducing the height.
“Both groups on both sides of the issue actually seem to prefer … keeping it applying to all buildings but reducing the height,” she said.
“The vetting process through the planning department is more stringent, and we would have the skilled staff to look for those specific design standards,” Black noted, to which Little wondered if that might not be a realistic request of the planning board.
“Could there be some intermediate threshold? I believe site plan application is 10,000 square feet and above,” she stated, to which Black said a site plan threshold would be the easiest solution.
Councilman at-Large Michael Griffin then asked if this would have any impact on the city’s redevelopment plans, to which Black said it would not.
“What, if any, onus does this put on homeowners if they’re trying to … change something about their homes?” Ward C Councilman Tom Zuppa questioned.
“The threshold that city planning recommended would not capture those. But the American Bird Conservancy designs, something as simple as blinds on the windows would be sufficient,” Black replied.
Councilwoman at-Large Mamta Singh also pointed out that there are some concerns that the local legislation could affect affordable housing unit costs, to which Black said that is simply not the case.
“The cheapest and best bird-friendly building is something built with insect screens, blinds, brick, board on board wood… which have been the most cost effective … The cost for glass facades reflective materials is 100 per square ft more expensive,” he elaborated, though the blinds are not included in the current draft of the ordinance.
“The bird-friendly design standards would make const buildings more affordable.”
Towards the tail end of the discussion, Councilman at-Large Rolando Lavarro asked if planning did any sort of cost analysis, to which Black said they shared that information with the previous council and would be happy to distribute to the new members.
Little also questioned the technical nuances of reintroducing an ordinance, to which City Clerk Sean Gallagher said it could be done in short order if need be.
Editor’s note: This story was updated with new information regarding what is outlined in the ordinance.
